Fox News 'Expert' claims Birmingham to be a 'no-go' zone for non-Muslims

tigermite

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

So, this 'terrorism expert' said this, portraying it as a 'fact'. Now after we've finished laughing at the stupidity of this, I think it raises an important question.

Should major news outlets be penalized for reporting inaccuracies/bigoted opinions/biases like this, especially when they portray it as a fact?
 

tigermite

No. They should rectify and apologise, which they did:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Muslim-non-Muslims-just-simply-don-t-in.html

Of course you need to be careful with what you say and who you accuse, but putting penalties on it would only bring self sensorship due to the risk of massive law suits.

Granted.

oh, and for the ones who actually still watch Fox News for honoust, careful and unbiased news... yeah, sorry.

But this is my point, should society allow these channels to spew there hateful, inaccurate bias? Is a half-arsed "sorry" every now again when they go way too far really enough?
 

DeletedUser36559

FOX news are ignorant and lazy. how can such a large organisation make such silly mistakes. Muslims only make up around 10% of the whole UK population.
 

DeletedUser1121

Ha, you are sorely mistaken Diggo!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Sports_International_(Netherlands)

Still though any news that is brought by any channel has a certain view on the matter. Every channel makes choices who they interview, which footage they show and so on.

In this case (and judging your last comment, many times before) Fox news told something that was false information. This should always be rectified and if you feel you were done injustice, you can always try to sue Rupert (good luck)
 

DeletedUser34315

I really, really don't think government penalties for inaccuracies will end in anything but highly sanitized news.
Censorship is NEVER good.
 

Diggo11

InnoGames
I really, really don't think government penalties for inaccuracies will end in anything but highly sanitized news.
Censorship is NEVER good.
News agencies around the world are already held to various enforceable accountability and balance standards; we're yet to see such a slippery slope eventuate in first world western countries. The only problem is abuse of editorial freedom by blurring the boundary between it and factual news, as demonstrated here recently on the cover of Murdoch-owned newspapers:
Had fox news not dressed up their bigoted drivel as factually correct information from a field expert, everyone would still be laughing rather than giving it some serious thought.
 

DeletedUser34315

I think that regulation to avoid libel can't really be considered censorship. Libel requires a specific target, and how would you pinpoint a target for something of this magnitude?
If a paper publishes an article that takes a couple deep south communities, and adds a nice dash of exaggeration to paint the entire south as a racist, terrible place, then who's really been slandered? Hundreds of articles such as this have been published, with no legal consequence-nor should there be.
If a paper runs the headline-"White man kills 8" and ten years later, he's found innocent-can whites sue for libel? After all, they've been made to look more violent, with an incident that was disproven.
As to murdoch being biased- is anyone surprised? There's not a news organization in the world without an agenda, although it's certainly true murdoch is more blunt about it.
Who's to decide what's 'too far' for journalism? I don't want to be the one drawing lines- I'd rather see murdoch's vitriol, fox's clowning, and CNN's bias than have any one group with the power to regulate media content to the level there'd have to be to prevent any sort of reoccurrence of this nonsense.
 

Diggo11

InnoGames
I think that regulation to avoid libel can't really be considered censorship. Libel requires a specific target, and how would you pinpoint a target for something of this magnitude?
If a paper publishes an article that takes a couple deep south communities, and adds a nice dash of exaggeration to paint the entire south as a racist, terrible place, then who's really been slandered? Hundreds of articles such as this have been published, with no legal consequence-nor should there be.
If a paper runs the headline-"White man kills 8" and ten years later, he's found innocent-can whites sue for libel? After all, they've been made to look more violent, with an incident that was disproven.
As to murdoch being biased- is anyone surprised? There's not a news organization in the world without an agenda, although it's certainly true murdoch is more blunt about it.
Who's to decide what's 'too far' for journalism? I don't want to be the one drawing lines- I'd rather see murdoch's vitriol, fox's clowning, and CNN's bias than have any one group with the power to regulate media content to the level there'd have to be to prevent any sort of reoccurrence of this nonsense.
The disallowance of defamation only further demonstrates the slippery slope fallacy is wrong: there is no true freedom of speech to begin with, no ideal position from which to slide. Nevertheless, it's beside the point; what's interesting to look at here is the imbalance of political reporting (as well as general decency standards, i.e. the example in the original post). As I said before, news agencies around the world are already held to various enforceable accountability and balance standards, which you don't seem to acknowledge.

In Australia, from which my examples are drawn, there is already a group with the power to regulate media content. They are called The Australian Communications and Media Authority and they enforce legislation and regulation affecting broadcast media. Notably, this includes the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) which stipulates a number of balance restrictions, such as the requirement to provide all parties with reasonable access during an election and clearly label all campaign material. Television and radio broadcasters continue to push their agendas as they please with free editorial license, despite the ACMA having enforcement powers up to shutting down the broadcaster for breaches, it is just not masqueraded as god given truth.

Print media is alternatively covered by a self-regulatory body, the Australian Press Council. They have comparable reporting standards and codes of ethics but no power to enforce them. Given our newspapers have no greater freedom of speech but countless more examples of abuse of it, it's clear which model is superior. The fantasy third option, having no oversight, would only be even worse.

I couldn't tell you the names of equivalents in other countries, but I'm sure you'll quickly find them out for yourself if you start broadcasting a pro-Islamic extremist rant on a random television frequency.
 

Big John1970

I just watched the footage the other day. Let me tell you, it takes quite a bit to shock me, but hearing this guy mouth off like that did shock me. The problem for me is, in some parts of America, people aren't what you would call 'tolerant' and this kind of crap just stokes the fires of ignorance and hatred.
I am talking about the areas where the Top Gear boys went and - just for a laugh - they had to write slogans on each others' cars. Such slogans as 'Man-love RULES' and 'Nascar SUCKS!' It was only meant as a joke, but some of the local rednecks wanted to SHOOT them BECAUSE of it.
This guy was saying that Birmingham was a 'no-go' for non-muslims and that police in London were actually beating people. I can't remember his exact words, I'm sorry. But let me tell you something. I am British and we are proud of our tolerances of other creeds and religions.
It is a documented fact that during WWII, American soldiers were shown a video clip that showed a white soldier and a black soldier being invited to tea by a little old British lady. Underneath were the words, "This would NEVER happen in OUR country!"
Now - thankfully - things HAVE changed in America and they have a black President. But it just goes to show how tolerant Britain is and always has been. (For the most part. There will ALWAYS be a minority - both whites and non-whites who will instil hatred and mistrust. But they are in a declining minority.)
I once heard a white woman saying to her small child some VERY offensive racial slurs against an Asian woman who was only walking past. and the Asian woman had done nothing against her.
Thankfully, like I say, people who pass on this kind of hatred are in the minority and - I sincerely hope - declining.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top